8.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Budapest.
9.  On 12 June 1997 the applicant, a recidivist offender, was arrested after having been caught red-handed selling amphetamines in a bar. During his interrogation on the same day the applicant refused to testify and destroyed evidence by swallowing a piece of paper found in his possession at the time of his arrest.
In the ensuing proceedings the applicant was assisted by a defence counsel of his choice.
10.  On 14 June 1997 the Pest Central District Court ordered the applicant's detention on remand on charges of drug-trafficking. On the applicant's appeal, this decision was upheld by the Budapest Regional Court on 20 June 1997 on the ground of the danger of collusion.
On 30 June 1997, during his second interrogation, the applicant again refused to testify.
11.  On 8 July 1997 the Buda Central District Court, as confirmed by the Budapest Regional Court on 14 August 1997, prolonged the applicant's detention on remand on the ground of the danger of collusion.
12.  On 29 August 1997 the applicant made his first statement. The scope of the investigation was subsequently extended in order to uncover the chain of supply of drugs to the applicant.
13.  On 3 September 1997 the Budapest Regional Court further prolonged the applicant's detention on remand on the grounds of the danger of collusion and the risk that the applicant would abscond. This decision was upheld on 26 September 1997 by an appeal chamber of the Regional Court.
14.  On 26 September and 13 October 1997 two persons, also suspected of having been involved in the offence, were arrested and detained on remand.
On 13 October and 11 November 1997 the applicant was again interrogated.
15.  On 8 January 1998 the Budapest Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention on remand on the grounds that there was a risk of collusion and that he would abscond. This decision was upheld on 3 February 1998.
16.  On 9 February 1998 the Attorney General's Office requested legal assistance from the Federal Ministry of Justice of Germany in order to obtain evidence from a witness who had been convicted of drugs offences in Germany and who was serving a prison sentence in Bayreuth. The information requested was made available by the German authorities in July 1998.
17.  On 23 March 1998 the applicant was again interrogated.
18.  On 9 June and 12 October 1998 the Supreme Court prolonged the applicant's detention on remand on the grounds of risk of collusion and the danger that he would abscond.
19.  On 20 October 1998 the proceedings against a co-defendant were disjoined from the applicant's case since it appeared that further evidence needed to be obtained from abroad in the former's case.
20.  On 27 October 1998 the investigations in the applicant's case were closed. The case file contained some 3,000 pages of documents.
21.  On 23 December 1998 the applicant was heard by the public prosecutor who ordered the resumption of the investigation with a view to clarifying several matters raised by the applicant.
22.  On 6 January 1999 the applicant was again interrogated by the police.
23.  On 12 January 1999 the Budapest VI/VII District Public Prosecutor's Office preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant and two other defendants. The applicant was charged with the offence of abuse of narcotics.
24.  On 18 January 1999 the Pest Central District Court confirmed the applicant's detention on remand.
25.  On 7 April and 13 May 1999 the District Court held hearings. On the latter date it again prolonged the applicant's detention on remand.
26.  The next hearing was held on 23 June 1999 at which the District Court again prolonged the applicant's detention.
27.  On 19 July 1999 the District Court confirmed, in the course of a periodic review, the applicant's detention on remand on the grounds that there was a risk that he would abscond and re-offend. The applicant's appeal was turned down by the Budapest Regional Court on 25 August 1999.
28.  Another hearing, resulting in a decision to prolong the detention, took place on 16 September 1999. The reasons invoked by the District Court were identical to those underlying the decision of 19 July 1999.
29.  A hearing scheduled for 2 December 1999 was adjourned due to the illness of one of the lay judges.
At a hearing on 13 January 2000, the applicant withdrew his defence counsel's power of attorney, with the result that the hearing had to be adjourned.
30.  On 25 January 2000 the Supreme Court confirmed, in the course of a periodic review, the applicant's detention on the grounds that there was a danger that he would abscond and re-offend.
On 3 February 2000 the applicant's new defence counsel submitted his power of attorney to the District Court.
31.  The next hearing took place on 2 March 2000 at which the District Court, as confirmed by the Budapest Regional Court on 17 March 2000, decided to maintain the applicant's detention.
32.  Further hearings were held on 30 March and 10 April 2000. On the latter date, the applicant was convicted of narcotics abuse and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment. The District Court relied on documentary evidence, the testimony of numerous witnesses, the opinions of medical and drugs experts and the reports and testimony of the members of a specialised anti-drugs plain-clothes police squad. The District Court considered that the cumulative nature of the offence constituted an aggravating factor. The duration of the applicant's pre-trial detention was credited against his sentence.
33.  On appeal, on 6 December 2000 the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing and reduced the applicant's sentence to seven years' imprisonment. The Regional Court was satisfied that the offence committed by the applicant did not qualify as a cumulative offence. By way of mitigating circumstances, the Regional Court took note of the applicant's family situation and the more favourable court practice at the time of the commission of the offence. Concerning the factors to be taken into account when sentencing the applicant and his co-defendants, the Regional Court concluded as follows:
“When sentencing the defendants, the court took into consideration the behaviour displayed on committing the offence, the type and quantity of the drugs involved, the defendants' prius as well as the long time that has elapsed since the commission of the offence.”
34.  The applicant served his prison sentence in Vác Prison. On 18 January 2003 he was conditionally released.